i also have 4 children. but right from the start ive called the shots. we have free and subsidised tertiary education here in australia so anyone can get educated. i disavow any personal transport that uses petroleum...so no buying cars for my children.
personally i dont know what it is parents are buying their kids but i think the figures i see quoted for the raising oif children is so outrageous my head spins. sometimes i wonder what it is my children are missing out on. then i look at them and realise that they are loved and fed and housed and clothed and anything else is superfluous.
some may say my world view is a little askew but it's not. consumerism sucks and will be the death of society given enough time.
To each his own, I'll raise my four boys the way I see fit, and you can do the same with your own. Unfortunately cars are needed where we live in the country, there is no public transportation in our town. We can get to NY city by a bus...but no where else locally. All of my sons have cars that don't guzzle gas. Colleges are not free here in the states. SUNY schools cost us about $17,000 a year per child, and that is a bargain. Private colleges can cost up to about $50,000 a year. I told my boys we would only be paying for a SUNY education only. Oh and college degrees here take 4 years, so that is $17,000 X 4 X 4 for my family. So even if I didn't pay for their cars....there is no way I'd want my kids to start life out with loans that big, I'd rather retire a few years later. I'm not sure what you pay for health care costs in AU ....my families health insurance policy is $1500 a month, and we have high deductibles too for prescriptions and doctors visits, and even hospital costs. Braces are $6000. Food on average costs $20,000 a year for my crew. A simple dentist visit is about $150 per family member every 6 months. My sons glasses are $300 a year. These are not luxury's, they are necessities. My kids are far from spoiled possession wise, the cost of living here is outrageous. It IS expensive to raise a family in the states, especially New York.
oxc
~*LIVE~LOVE~LAUGH*~
*May the Peace of the Wilderness be with YOU*
He is your friend, your partner, your defender, your dog. You are his life, his love, his leader. He will be yours, faithful and true, to the last beat of his heart. You owe it to him to be worthy of such devotion.
— Unknown
To each his own, I'll raise my four boys the way I see fit, and you can do the same with your own. Unfortunately cars are needed where we live in the country, there is no public transportation in our town. We can get to NY city by a bus...but no where else locally. All of my sons have cars that don't guzzle gas. Colleges are not free here in the states. SUNY schools cost us about $17,000 a year per child, and that is a bargain. Private colleges can cost up to about $50,000 a year. I told my boys we would only be paying for a SUNY education only. Oh and college degrees here take 4 years, so that is $17,000 X 4 X 4 for my family. So even if I didn't pay for their cars....there is no way I'd want my kids to start life out with loans that big, I'd rather retire a few years later. I'm not sure what you pay for health care costs in AU ....my families health insurance policy is $1500 a month, and we have high deductibles too for prescriptions and doctors visits, and even hospital costs. Braces are $6000. Food on average costs $20,000 a year for my crew. A simple dentist visit is about $150 per family member every 6 months. My sons glasses are $300 a year. These are not luxury's, they are necessities. My kids are far from spoiled possession wise, the cost of living here is outrageous. It IS expensive to raise a family in the states, especially New York.
oxc
please dont think i was passing judgement on the way you raise your kids. that is not something i would do. i was stating my own situation and my aversion to this capitalist consumerist society we all live in. i am very fortunate to live in australia, which admittedly is a bit more socialised than the US. as for medical expenses, that is not something ive ever had to be concerned about. and certainly not something to be classed as frivilous.
tertiary education is not free here in australia either. but payment can be deferred until one's wage rises above a certain level and then the fees must be paid back.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I mean, I just figure it's game over at 35 unless you can afford really good health care. That number is like doomsday.
Tish - i'm not going to read this thread and if you're still reading posts here than my 2 cents is 'hell no'. Little man was born to his 35 yr old mother...just days before her 36th birthday. Although I think he's clinically insane right now at 1 1/2, he's just acting his age.
please dont think i was passing judgement on the way you raise your kids. that is not something i would do. i was stating my own situation and my aversion to this capitalist consumerist society we all live in. i am very fortunate to live in australia, which admittedly is a bit more socialised than the US. as for medical expenses, that is not something ive ever had to be concerned about. and certainly not something to be classed as frivilous.
tertiary education is not free here in australia either. but payment can be deferred until one's wage rises above a certain level and then the fees must be paid back.
My best friend in the entire world married an Aussie...they lived here for a couple of years and then decided that they would do much better in AU. She misses her family and friends more then I can say...but it was the best choice financially for them. They live in a beautiful home with their two children and don't struggle at all. She comes home every 2 years for about a month. Here she would always be playing catch up. I really feel for the Middle and lower class people, I have no idea how they are able to pay for the costs of heating their homes and filling their cars with gas. People in the states don't get raises that go up with the cost of living...they are making less and less every year because every year the cost of living increases so much. It is really sad for them.
I think that is nice how you can pay for college later after you get a job. My oldest son wanted to go to a private college, I figured out how much he would have to borrow on his end after the $17,000 we gave him....he would have to pay about $1300 a month for 9 years. He would be hard pressed to find a job paying good enough money to afford that loan, an apartment, car insurance ($3000 a year for a young man) food, etc he would have to live with us until he was 30 he chose the state school!
Anyway YOU are right.....love is free, and you CAN raise a family closer to the earth if you choose, but unfortunately here in the states you need too much money to just survive.
oxc
~*LIVE~LOVE~LAUGH*~
*May the Peace of the Wilderness be with YOU*
He is your friend, your partner, your defender, your dog. You are his life, his love, his leader. He will be yours, faithful and true, to the last beat of his heart. You owe it to him to be worthy of such devotion.
— Unknown
My best friend in the entire world married an Aussie...they lived here for a couple of years and then decided that they would do much better in AU. She misses her family and friends more then I can say...but it was the best choice financially for them. They live in a beautiful home with their two children and don't struggle at all. She comes home every 2 years for about a month. Here she would always be playing catch up. I really feel for the Middle and lower class people, I have no idea how they are able to pay for the costs of heating their homes and filling their cars with gas. People in the states don't get raises that go up with the cost of living...they are making less and less every year because every year the cost of living increases so much. It is really sad for them.
I think that is nice how you can pay for college later after you get a job. My oldest son wanted to go to a private college, I figured out how much he would have to borrow on his end after the $17,000 we gave him....he would have to pay about $1300 a month for 9 years. He would be hard pressed to find a job paying good enough money to afford that loan, an apartment, car insurance ($3000 a year for a young man) food, etc he would have to live with us until he was 30 he chose the state school!
Anyway YOU are right.....love is free, and you CAN raise a family closer to the earth if you choose, but unfortunately here in the states you need too much money to just survive.
oxc
sounds like its time for a revolution.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
my mom was 42 when she had my brother (on my 21st birthday), he's 19 soon, and doing just fine...I don't think there is an answer to this question, situation and people kind of dictate
"Music, for me, was fucking heroin." eV (nothing Ed has said is more true for me personally than this quote)
Like lying on the beach in Bora Bora...Jimmy Buffet softly strumming his guitar, margarita being served by topless person of your choice, fresh fruit, cool breeze
Topless person of my choice?!?!? I'll choose either Don Knotts or Angela Lansbury!
"The leads are weak!"
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
For what it's worth, I know several female doctors who practice obstetrics and are also mothers, so I consider them to be experts on such issues (both as doctors and patients/mothers), and
1. They all acknowledge that advanced maternal age qualifies a pregnancy as "high-risk" and
2. Several of them have still chosen to wait until their early 40s to start having children.
I think 35 is the 'magic #' that i have heard problems can start to happen after that age. I am about to hit that magic # next month and I don't have kids yet, but I still plan to!!
My Mom had me when she was 35 and I came out ok
Halle Berry is 41 and pregnant with her 1st child, and JLo is 37. Gwen Stefani was 36 when she had her baby. I don't think 35 is too old.
"...like a word misplaced, nothing said, what a waste.."
"Sometimes life should be consumed in measured doses"
6-01-06
6/25/08
Free Speedy
and Metsy!
the truth is it's not really "free" anywhere. under any system trade offs are made. in canada for example people often have to wait for extensive periods to receive "free" care and often people such as the elderly are made to wait longer or are denied in favor of someone else.
i didnt read through every post to see if someone mentioned it but see the movie sicko, this comes up
i have wished for so long, how i wish for you today
JEFFREY ROSS ROGERS 1975-2002
I mean, I just figure it's game over at 35 unless you can afford really good health care. That number is like doomsday.
i read in some cosmopolitan magazine that it's actually better to have kids at around 34+ age. they gave some estimation that women tend to live longer.... although they have more health complications they have less life threatening one's. then they made some kind of estimation that women who have children at that age are usually more succesful financially. i can't remember what magazine it was... one of those for ladies magazine, not really cosmopolitan. and yeah, i'm a dude... i was reading it at a laundry with no tv's.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
i read in some cosmopolitan magazine that it's actually better to have kids at around 34+ age. they gave some estimation that women tend to live longer.... although they have more health complications they have less life threatening one's. then they made some kind of estimation that women who have children at that age are usually more succesful financially. i can't remember what magazine it was... one of those for ladies magazine, not really cosmopolitan. and yeah, i'm a dude... i was reading it at a laundry with no tv's.
i would wager a bet that whatever magazine you read it in, is geared to women who have prioritised their career over their reproductive and personal life for whatever reason and so are pandering to that demographic by making them believe that theyve not left it 'too late' to become mothers.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i would wager a bet that whatever magazine you read it in, is geared to women who have prioritised their career over their reproductive and personal life for whatever reason and so are pandering to that demographic by making them believe that theyve not left it 'too late' to become mothers.
sheesh... could you have at least broken your paragraph into at least two sentences?
but, yeah, you're probably right. although i would say they might've had a few pointers in their "estimations". you know, giving them the benefit of the doubt... for instance, my sister. she's 29 right now and she's pregnant. i'm sure she's planning to have more kids. this is only her first and she's only been married since last march. :eek:
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
i would wager a bet that whatever magazine you read it in, is geared to women who have prioritised their career over their reproductive and personal life for whatever reason and so are pandering to that demographic by making them believe that theyve not left it 'too late' to become mothers.
lots of women in their 30's have babies though. It's not free in America. Having babies is quite expensive. not everybody thinks about that but everybody should. It's not just a baby, it's a life.
Plus not everybody meets the right person at the right age. There are a lot of variables. And there is nothing wrong with a woman also focusing on her career. Oftentimes people need 2 incomes to raise a child. For me my mother having a job=she was a role model for me. And she had me when she was 35 after the doctors told her she'd never have any more children, after she had a miscarriage.
"...like a word misplaced, nothing said, what a waste.."
"Sometimes life should be consumed in measured doses"
6-01-06
6/25/08
Free Speedy
and Metsy!
lots of women in their 30's have babies though. It's not free in America. Having babies is quite expensive. not everybody thinks about that but everybody should. It's not just a baby, it's a life.
Plus not everybody meets the right person at the right age. There are a lot of variables. And there is nothing wrong with a woman also focusing on her career. Oftentimes people need 2 incomes to raise a child. For me my mother having a job=she was a role model for me. And she had me when she was 35 after the doctors told her she'd never have any more children, after she had a miscarriage.
i know allie. i had 2 children in my 30s.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
To each his own, I'll raise my four boys the way I see fit, and you can do the same with your own. Unfortunately cars are needed where we live in the country, there is no public transportation in our town. We can get to NY city by a bus...but no where else locally. All of my sons have cars that don't guzzle gas. Colleges are not free here in the states. SUNY schools cost us about $17,000 a year per child, and that is a bargain. Private colleges can cost up to about $50,000 a year. I told my boys we would only be paying for a SUNY education only. Oh and college degrees here take 4 years, so that is $17,000 X 4 X 4 for my family. So even if I didn't pay for their cars....there is no way I'd want my kids to start life out with loans that big, I'd rather retire a few years later. I'm not sure what you pay for health care costs in AU ....my families health insurance policy is $1500 a month, and we have high deductibles too for prescriptions and doctors visits, and even hospital costs. Braces are $6000. Food on average costs $20,000 a year for my crew. A simple dentist visit is about $150 per family member every 6 months. My sons glasses are $300 a year. These are not luxury's, they are necessities. My kids are far from spoiled possession wise, the cost of living here is outrageous. It IS expensive to raise a family in the states, especially New York.
oxc
I can't even imagine what that must be like! We have to pay for some things, but the majority of the medical and educational necessities are either free or cheap for public services or, for uni, you pay later when you can afford it.
Australian's all let us rejoice
for we are young and FREE!
I can't even imagine what that must be like! We have to pay for some things, but the majority of the medical and educational necessities are either free or cheap for public services or, for uni, you pay later when you can afford it.
Australian's all let us rejoice
for we are young and FREE!
To be middle class in my town raising a family with only two children you need to make over $100,000 a year, and you would have to be very conservative with that salary. It was not like that when we moved here, it was a very charming farm town. People liked it so much they all had to move here and change it, we liked the smell of cow poop, the newbies what to look at pretty scenes and bring their BS with them.....it is now expensive and ruined. I will only stay here until my children are raised. NY rips people off like no other state...we are TAXED TO DEATH!
oxc
~*LIVE~LOVE~LAUGH*~
*May the Peace of the Wilderness be with YOU*
He is your friend, your partner, your defender, your dog. You are his life, his love, his leader. He will be yours, faithful and true, to the last beat of his heart. You owe it to him to be worthy of such devotion.
— Unknown
I don't think anyone is saying that 35-40 is too late to have babies. Lots of women do, and many of those women have healthy babies with little or no complications. However, the older a woman is, the greater the risk of complications and genetic disorders.
No time to be void or save up on life. You got to spend it all.
I don't think anyone is saying that 35-40 is too late to have babies. Lots of women do, and many of those women have healthy babies with little or no complications. However, the older a woman is, the greater the risk of complications and genetic disorders.
On one hand knowledge is power, but on the other hand, how would women in the work force change their career plans given this information? I don't know if the "biological clock" marketing ploy came out about the same time as these statistics. I remember that they did, and ooooooowheeeeee wouldn't that change the workforce, eh?
I personally wanted a child since I was 6, so my clock's been ticking quite a while, eh? I don't want a child anymore than I have my entire life. I probably wanted one more before I thought I was high risk for complications due to my heart. I don't think I'm high risk due to my age (39). There so many other things to worry about.
I still find those statistics suspect, but I guess it doesn't really matter in my life since I'm not close to having a baby. All the ones in medical school could probably roast me on a spit. I concede defeat to the medical books, temporarily. I don't give up my gut feeling, though.
There is no such thing as leftover pizza. There is now pizza and later pizza. - anonymous The risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math - The Mincing Mockingbird
i would wager a bet that whatever magazine you read it in, is geared to women who have prioritised their career over their reproductive and personal life for whatever reason and so are pandering to that demographic by making them believe that theyve not left it 'too late' to become mothers.
^^^cate is on the money here.
This thread is an interesting one to read.
People have reasons for what they believe...personal knowledge, medical knowledge, wishes, hopes, heresay...and it's all coming out in this debate.
Whatever people FEEL, I think menopause is the real slamming door in this case. Once women get over 40, time is probably running out quickly and that's that.
I don't think anyone is saying that 35-40 is too late to have babies. Lots of women do, and many of those women have healthy babies with little or no complications. However, the older a woman is, the greater the risk of complications and genetic disorders.
exactly.
and i hate to be the one to point out the obvious, but what about adoption? i understand many women want the *whole process* pregnancy, birth, their own biological child.....but none the less, even at younger ages that may not be possible. i've already stated i have no desire to have children, but once upon a time i did. if i truly wanted em and couldn't have em...i'd have adopted. i think at a *certain age* in MY personal opinion, it's better to adopt, b/c why take the risk? your own health may be stellar, but pregnancy can wreak havoc on ANYone, regardless of their initital health.....and genetic defects/complications associated with age, etc....why would one want to risk all that simply to have their own biological child? adoption seems the most giving and wise decision. and yes, i know plenty of celebrities go and have babies at 40+, but i also don't make any other decisions based on what celebrities...with top-notch medical care and almost unlimited funds.....do. to me, just because it's possible...doesn't necessarily mean it's wise. obviously many will disagree, i am not saying my thoughts are right, they are simply my thoughts on the matter. there is good reason why we are designed the way we are, why we have biological perogatives and changes at certain ages, etc. i love my parents, but yes....my father died when i was 23...he was 78. :( i am 39, my mom turns 80 next month. so there is always the obvious point/concern, the older you are as a parent, the less time you will hae with your child, even if you stick around long enough to see them reach 18.
the game is not over at 35
the game is over whenever you stop making eggs-even then science can help you out.
It depends on the individual.
you stop making eggs the day you are born. women are born with all the eggs they will ever have. i mentioned this very fact much earlier in this thread. this very fact has a lot to do with the many issues/defect risks of older moms, their eggs are 35-40 years old....eggs don't age well. men make sperm daily, women don't get more eggs. you can get an egg donation sure....but i just wanted to clarify this point.
but absolutely EVERYthing depends on the individual...but the risks ARE there, and there is no way of knowing ahead of time for certain, except to accept the fact that there ARe much higher risks, and i personally think it's important to consider over the age of 35 if you want to risk your future child's possible life-long health to fulfill your personal biological imperative to procreate.
if you want to risk your future child's possible life-long health to fulfill your personal biological imperative to procreate.
I was born with a heart disease, and my mom was 26. Of course, I was a twin, and one twin usually has something going. However, even though my mom was high-risk for twins (her mom was a twin) that didn't stop her. I think your earlier point was valid. It depends on the individual.
I don't think if I have a child now that by getting pregnant I'm being selfish. The above statement kindof implies that I would be (?) I don't think it's a biological imperative to procreate. It's social. There isn't a biological pull to procreate. Biological clock marketers be damned!
I have to say, from an individual standpoint, this age shit has so little room in my life. If I have a kid I may die, and it's not due to age, but my heart. This age related nonsense is so trivial compared to what's what in my life. For those that need to worry, sure, worry about age, but what a waste of time. What a complete and utter waste of resources and planning space.
If my only opportunity to have a baby will happen when I'm 43 or so I'm going to do it. I'll be scared. I'd still want to do it.
There is no such thing as leftover pizza. There is now pizza and later pizza. - anonymous The risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math - The Mincing Mockingbird
I was born with a heart disease, and my mom was 26. Of course, I was a twin, and one twin usually has something going. However, even though my mom was high-risk for twins (her mom was a twin) that didn't stop her. I think your earlier point was valid. It depends on the individual.
I don't think if I have a child now that by getting pregnant I'm being selfish. The above statement kindof implies that I would be (?) I don't think it's a biological imperative to procreate. It's social. There isn't a biological pull to procreate. Biological clock marketers be damned!
I have to say, from an individual standpoint, this age shit has so little room in my life. If I have a kid I may die, and it's not due to age, but my heart. This age related nonsense is so trivial compared to what's what in my life. For those that need to worry, sure, worry about age, but what a waste of time. What a complete and utter waste of resources and planning space.
as i've said earlier...there are no guarantees at ANY age. of course risks/complications/etc can and do happen at ANY time. i am also not suggesting anyone WORRY about their age, but i do believe when one beomes older, at the very least...it should be a consideration. there ARE inherent risks, linked ONLY to age, that can and do occur. if they did not, there would not be countless studies to demonstrate this very correlation. all i suggest is peope consider such things. does that mean i think no one should become a parent over the age of 35? of course not. nor even the age of 40, but it's just my opinion that it's not the greatest idea. however, i have no intention of having a child, so for me, it's a moot point. i am merely participating in the conversation. i find it all very interesting, always have...the biological/social pull to procreate. i think having children is wonderful, and that can be accomplished without any of the health risks to mother or child by adoption, that's all.
i WILL say, that woman a while back, maybe a year? or so ago...who was well over the age of 50 and gave birth thru medical intervention - yes, i consider that very selfish. i don't expect anyone to agree with me, it's merely my personal opinion. there is NO NEED to give birth at such an advanced age. if one so wants a child then, adopt. i think it's selfish to risk the possible long-term health of a child, it's selfish b/c at such an advanced age you could well leave them far earlier in their life, etc. i know *anything* is possible at any age, again, no guarantees....but at such an age...i'ts much more likely is all......and i think wanting to have a child of your own then only b/c you want a child of your OWN...is selfish at such a point. agree, disagree, ce'st la vie........
all is a personal choice but i do believe we are designed the way we are for a REASON and sometimes medical advances take what nature has intended and skews it in such a way that is not *healthy* imo. again, just my own thoughts.
as i've said earlier...there are no guarantees at ANY age. of course risks/complications/etc can and do happen at ANY time. i am also not suggesting anyone WORRY about their age, but i do believe when one beomes older, at the very least...it should be a consideration. there ARE inherent risks, linked ONLY to age, that can and do occur. if they did not, there would not be countless studies to demonstrate this very correlation. all i suggest is peope consider such things. does that mean i think no one should become a parent over the age of 35? of course not. nor even the age of 40, but it's just my opinion that it's not the greatest idea. however, i have no intention of having a child, so for me, it's a moot point. i am merely participating in the conversation. i find it all very interesting, always have...the biological/social pull to procreate. i think having children is wonderful, and that can be accomplished without any of the health risks to mother or child by adoption, that's all.
i WILL say, that woman a while back, maybe a year? or so ago...who was well over the age of 50 and gave birth thru medical intervention - yes, i consider that very selfish. i don't expect anyone to agree with me, it's merely my personal opinion. there is NO NEED to give birth at such an advanced age. if one so wants a child then, adopt. i think it's selfish to risk the possible long-term health of a child, it's selfish b/c at such an advanced age you could well leave them far earlier in their life, etc. i know *anything* is possible at any age, again, no guarantees....but at such an age...i'ts much more likely is all......and i think wanting to have a child of your own then only b/c you want a child of your OWN...is selfish at such a point. agree, disagree, ce'st la vie........
all is a personal choice but i do believe we are designed the way we are for a REASON and sometimes medical advances take what nature has intended and skews it in such a way that is not *healthy* imo. again, just my own thoughts.
I agree.
Walking can be a real trip
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
i WILL say, that woman a while back, maybe a year? or so ago...who was well over the age of 50 and gave birth thru medical intervention - yes, i consider that very selfish. i don't expect anyone to agree with me, it's merely my personal opinion. there is NO NEED to give birth at such an advanced age.
I haven't really followed this thread very much and it's too long to read everything but I would like to add to this point.
Bearing a child and giving birth is not a god given right for women, it is a blessing. I believe that nature should take it's course. If your body is not allowing you to get pregnant, there is a reason. If you can still conceive and go through pregnancy naturally at 50, there is a reason too. I don't think medicine should intervene with conception - your body is telling you something and you're messing with it. Just like the fact that more than 30% of pregnancies end in miscarriages... your body knows what is viable or not. Let it be your guide.
Don't think that I don't believe in medical interventions or things like that.. just not for getting pregnant.
Comments
To each his own, I'll raise my four boys the way I see fit, and you can do the same with your own. Unfortunately cars are needed where we live in the country, there is no public transportation in our town. We can get to NY city by a bus...but no where else locally. All of my sons have cars that don't guzzle gas. Colleges are not free here in the states. SUNY schools cost us about $17,000 a year per child, and that is a bargain. Private colleges can cost up to about $50,000 a year. I told my boys we would only be paying for a SUNY education only. Oh and college degrees here take 4 years, so that is $17,000 X 4 X 4 for my family. So even if I didn't pay for their cars....there is no way I'd want my kids to start life out with loans that big, I'd rather retire a few years later. I'm not sure what you pay for health care costs in AU ....my families health insurance policy is $1500 a month, and we have high deductibles too for prescriptions and doctors visits, and even hospital costs. Braces are $6000. Food on average costs $20,000 a year for my crew. A simple dentist visit is about $150 per family member every 6 months. My sons glasses are $300 a year. These are not luxury's, they are necessities. My kids are far from spoiled possession wise, the cost of living here is outrageous. It IS expensive to raise a family in the states, especially New York.
oxc
*May the Peace of the Wilderness be with YOU*
He is your friend, your partner, your defender, your dog. You are his life, his love, his leader. He will be yours, faithful and true, to the last beat of his heart. You owe it to him to be worthy of such devotion.
— Unknown
please dont think i was passing judgement on the way you raise your kids. that is not something i would do. i was stating my own situation and my aversion to this capitalist consumerist society we all live in. i am very fortunate to live in australia, which admittedly is a bit more socialised than the US. as for medical expenses, that is not something ive ever had to be concerned about. and certainly not something to be classed as frivilous.
tertiary education is not free here in australia either. but payment can be deferred until one's wage rises above a certain level and then the fees must be paid back.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Tish - i'm not going to read this thread and if you're still reading posts here than my 2 cents is 'hell no'. Little man was born to his 35 yr old mother...just days before her 36th birthday. Although I think he's clinically insane right now at 1 1/2, he's just acting his age.
sd
My best friend in the entire world married an Aussie...they lived here for a couple of years and then decided that they would do much better in AU. She misses her family and friends more then I can say...but it was the best choice financially for them. They live in a beautiful home with their two children and don't struggle at all. She comes home every 2 years for about a month. Here she would always be playing catch up. I really feel for the Middle and lower class people, I have no idea how they are able to pay for the costs of heating their homes and filling their cars with gas. People in the states don't get raises that go up with the cost of living...they are making less and less every year because every year the cost of living increases so much. It is really sad for them.
I think that is nice how you can pay for college later after you get a job. My oldest son wanted to go to a private college, I figured out how much he would have to borrow on his end after the $17,000 we gave him....he would have to pay about $1300 a month for 9 years. He would be hard pressed to find a job paying good enough money to afford that loan, an apartment, car insurance ($3000 a year for a young man) food, etc he would have to live with us until he was 30
Anyway YOU are right.....love is free, and you CAN raise a family closer to the earth if you choose, but unfortunately here in the states you need too much money to just survive.
oxc
*May the Peace of the Wilderness be with YOU*
He is your friend, your partner, your defender, your dog. You are his life, his love, his leader. He will be yours, faithful and true, to the last beat of his heart. You owe it to him to be worthy of such devotion.
— Unknown
sounds like its time for a revolution.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
Topless person of my choice?!?!? I'll choose either Don Knotts or Angela Lansbury!
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
"What's your name?"
"FUCK YOU! THAT"S MY NAME!"
1. They all acknowledge that advanced maternal age qualifies a pregnancy as "high-risk" and
2. Several of them have still chosen to wait until their early 40s to start having children.
My Mom had me when she was 35 and I came out ok
Halle Berry is 41 and pregnant with her 1st child, and JLo is 37. Gwen Stefani was 36 when she had her baby. I don't think 35 is too old.
"Sometimes life should be consumed in measured doses"
6-01-06
6/25/08
Free Speedy
and Metsy!
JEFFREY ROSS ROGERS 1975-2002
9.10.98 NYC / 8.23.00 JONES BEACH /4.30.03 UNIONDALE / 7.9.03 NYC /5.12.06 ALBANY/ 6.1.06 E.RUTHEFORD/ 6.3.06 E. RUTHEFORD/ CAMDEN 6.19.08/ NYC 6.24.08/ NYC 6.25.08/ HARTFORD 6.27.08/ CHICAGO 8.24.09/ PHILLY 10.31.09/ HARTFORD 5.15.10/ NEWARK 5.18.10/ NYC 5.20.10/ CHICAGO 7.19.13/ BROOKLYN 10.18.13/ BROOKLYN 10.19.13/ HARTFORD 10.25.13/ NYC 9.26.15/ 4.8.16 FT. LAUDERDALE/ 4.9.16 MIAMI / 5.1.16 NYC/ 5.2.16 NYC / 8.5.16 BOSTON / 8.7.16 BOSTON/ 8.20.18 CHICAGO/ 9.2.18 BOSTON/ 9.4.18 BOSTON/ 9.18.21 ASBURY PARK
finally, FUCK TICKETMASTER
i would wager a bet that whatever magazine you read it in, is geared to women who have prioritised their career over their reproductive and personal life for whatever reason and so are pandering to that demographic by making them believe that theyve not left it 'too late' to become mothers.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
but, yeah, you're probably right. although i would say they might've had a few pointers in their "estimations". you know, giving them the benefit of the doubt... for instance, my sister. she's 29 right now and she's pregnant. i'm sure she's planning to have more kids. this is only her first and she's only been married since last march. :eek:
Plus not everybody meets the right person at the right age. There are a lot of variables. And there is nothing wrong with a woman also focusing on her career. Oftentimes people need 2 incomes to raise a child. For me my mother having a job=she was a role model for me. And she had me when she was 35 after the doctors told her she'd never have any more children, after she had a miscarriage.
"Sometimes life should be consumed in measured doses"
6-01-06
6/25/08
Free Speedy
and Metsy!
i know allie. i had 2 children in my 30s.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
"Sometimes life should be consumed in measured doses"
6-01-06
6/25/08
Free Speedy
and Metsy!
hope is the light in the darkness.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I can't even imagine what that must be like! We have to pay for some things, but the majority of the medical and educational necessities are either free or cheap for public services or, for uni, you pay later when you can afford it.
Australian's all let us rejoice
for we are young and FREE!
To be middle class in my town raising a family with only two children you need to make over $100,000 a year, and you would have to be very conservative with that salary. It was not like that when we moved here, it was a very charming farm town. People liked it so much they all had to move here and change it, we liked the smell of cow poop, the newbies what to look at pretty scenes and bring their BS with them.....it is now expensive and ruined. I will only stay here until my children are raised. NY rips people off like no other state...we are TAXED TO DEATH!
oxc
*May the Peace of the Wilderness be with YOU*
He is your friend, your partner, your defender, your dog. You are his life, his love, his leader. He will be yours, faithful and true, to the last beat of his heart. You owe it to him to be worthy of such devotion.
— Unknown
I personally wanted a child since I was 6, so my clock's been ticking quite a while, eh? I don't want a child anymore than I have my entire life. I probably wanted one more before I thought I was high risk for complications due to my heart. I don't think I'm high risk due to my age (39). There so many other things to worry about.
I still find those statistics suspect, but I guess it doesn't really matter in my life since I'm not close to having a baby. All the ones in medical school could probably roast me on a spit. I concede defeat to the medical books, temporarily. I don't give up my gut feeling, though.
The risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math - The Mincing Mockingbird
^^^cate is on the money here.
This thread is an interesting one to read.
People have reasons for what they believe...personal knowledge, medical knowledge, wishes, hopes, heresay...and it's all coming out in this debate.
Whatever people FEEL, I think menopause is the real slamming door in this case. Once women get over 40, time is probably running out quickly and that's that.
exactly.
and i hate to be the one to point out the obvious, but what about adoption? i understand many women want the *whole process* pregnancy, birth, their own biological child.....but none the less, even at younger ages that may not be possible. i've already stated i have no desire to have children, but once upon a time i did. if i truly wanted em and couldn't have em...i'd have adopted. i think at a *certain age* in MY personal opinion, it's better to adopt, b/c why take the risk? your own health may be stellar, but pregnancy can wreak havoc on ANYone, regardless of their initital health.....and genetic defects/complications associated with age, etc....why would one want to risk all that simply to have their own biological child? adoption seems the most giving and wise decision. and yes, i know plenty of celebrities go and have babies at 40+, but i also don't make any other decisions based on what celebrities...with top-notch medical care and almost unlimited funds.....do. to me, just because it's possible...doesn't necessarily mean it's wise. obviously many will disagree, i am not saying my thoughts are right, they are simply my thoughts on the matter. there is good reason why we are designed the way we are, why we have biological perogatives and changes at certain ages, etc. i love my parents, but yes....my father died when i was 23...he was 78. :( i am 39, my mom turns 80 next month. so there is always the obvious point/concern, the older you are as a parent, the less time you will hae with your child, even if you stick around long enough to see them reach 18.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
the game is over whenever you stop making eggs-even then science can help you out.
It depends on the individual.
you stop making eggs the day you are born. women are born with all the eggs they will ever have. i mentioned this very fact much earlier in this thread. this very fact has a lot to do with the many issues/defect risks of older moms, their eggs are 35-40 years old....eggs don't age well. men make sperm daily, women don't get more eggs. you can get an egg donation sure....but i just wanted to clarify this point.
but absolutely EVERYthing depends on the individual...but the risks ARE there, and there is no way of knowing ahead of time for certain, except to accept the fact that there ARe much higher risks, and i personally think it's important to consider over the age of 35 if you want to risk your future child's possible life-long health to fulfill your personal biological imperative to procreate.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I don't think if I have a child now that by getting pregnant I'm being selfish. The above statement kindof implies that I would be (?) I don't think it's a biological imperative to procreate. It's social. There isn't a biological pull to procreate. Biological clock marketers be damned!
I have to say, from an individual standpoint, this age shit has so little room in my life. If I have a kid I may die, and it's not due to age, but my heart. This age related nonsense is so trivial compared to what's what in my life. For those that need to worry, sure, worry about age, but what a waste of time. What a complete and utter waste of resources and planning space.
If my only opportunity to have a baby will happen when I'm 43 or so I'm going to do it. I'll be scared. I'd still want to do it.
The risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math - The Mincing Mockingbird
as i've said earlier...there are no guarantees at ANY age. of course risks/complications/etc can and do happen at ANY time. i am also not suggesting anyone WORRY about their age, but i do believe when one beomes older, at the very least...it should be a consideration. there ARE inherent risks, linked ONLY to age, that can and do occur. if they did not, there would not be countless studies to demonstrate this very correlation. all i suggest is peope consider such things. does that mean i think no one should become a parent over the age of 35? of course not. nor even the age of 40, but it's just my opinion that it's not the greatest idea. however, i have no intention of having a child, so for me, it's a moot point. i am merely participating in the conversation. i find it all very interesting, always have...the biological/social pull to procreate. i think having children is wonderful, and that can be accomplished without any of the health risks to mother or child by adoption, that's all.
i WILL say, that woman a while back, maybe a year? or so ago...who was well over the age of 50 and gave birth thru medical intervention - yes, i consider that very selfish. i don't expect anyone to agree with me, it's merely my personal opinion. there is NO NEED to give birth at such an advanced age. if one so wants a child then, adopt. i think it's selfish to risk the possible long-term health of a child, it's selfish b/c at such an advanced age you could well leave them far earlier in their life, etc. i know *anything* is possible at any age, again, no guarantees....but at such an age...i'ts much more likely is all......and i think wanting to have a child of your own then only b/c you want a child of your OWN...is selfish at such a point. agree, disagree, ce'st la vie........
all is a personal choice but i do believe we are designed the way we are for a REASON and sometimes medical advances take what nature has intended and skews it in such a way that is not *healthy* imo. again, just my own thoughts.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I agree.
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
Bearing a child and giving birth is not a god given right for women, it is a blessing. I believe that nature should take it's course. If your body is not allowing you to get pregnant, there is a reason. If you can still conceive and go through pregnancy naturally at 50, there is a reason too. I don't think medicine should intervene with conception - your body is telling you something and you're messing with it. Just like the fact that more than 30% of pregnancies end in miscarriages... your body knows what is viable or not. Let it be your guide.
Don't think that I don't believe in medical interventions or things like that.. just not for getting pregnant.